Share This Link

This response labels the client as attention-seeking, which dismisses their legitimate mood fluctuations, lacks empathy and does not support a therapeutic environment.

Although encouraging using the client’s name aids respect, it does not address the underlying mood dynamics or teach about the illness itself.

While client autonomy is important, stating the client “has the right to be difficult” normalizes problematic behavior without offering clarity or empathy toward the mental health condition.

Identifying social supports is premature; until trust and accurate perception stabilize, focusing on community connections does not alleviate paranoia-driven thought disorder.

Encouraging social interaction may worsen paranoia; engaging peers without first establishing trust and reality orientation can intensify distress or withdrawal.

Requiring a release of information form does not address immediate thought disturbances; it overlooks therapeutic needs and may exacerbate mistrust during acute paranoid episodes.

Showing control over the client risks escalating paranoia and aggression. This approach lacks therapeutic communication and violates the client's dignity, potentially increasing resistance or noncompliance.

Complying solely to reduce fear may temporarily reduce anxiety but inadvertently validates the delusion. It reinforces the client’s belief that external control is real, worsening psychosis.

Although showing understanding appears therapeutic, acting on the delusion by turning off the TV affirms the distorted belief. This approach blurs reality testing and undermines cognitive restructuring.

Immediate seclusion without assessing intent violates least-restrictive protocols. It may increase paranoia or trauma responses, especially if the client is hallucinating or misinterpreting the environment.

Warning about restraints can intensify fear, especially if the client feels controlled by hallucinations. This can trigger aggression and reduce the client’s trust in the treatment team.

Passive observation delays intervention. In cases with a known history of violence, early therapeutic dialogue is more proactive than waiting for worsening behaviors.

This response is confrontational and implies judgment. It discourages open dialogue and can cause defensiveness, blocking therapeutic rapport.

Labeling the client as being in denial is accusatory. It lacks empathy and creates resistance by confronting instead of inviting self-exploration.

This reinforces the client’s distorted belief. Agreeing with a harmful behavior validates drug use and misses the opportunity to explore motivation for change.

Lack of empathy and nurturing is more associated with narcissistic or antisocial traits, where entitlement or exploitation may develop instead of suspicion.

Discomfort with affection due to indifference aligns more with schizoid personality disorder, which involves detachment, not paranoia.

Recognition in early life followed by its absence in adolescence does not reflect the developmental pattern seen in paranoid personality disorder. It lacks connection to the pervasive distrust seen in this condition.

While helpful, social support systems are often absent or fragmented in homeless populations. Discharge can still be structured effectively through professional collaboration even when family support is lacking.

Compliance depends heavily on external supports and cognitive engagement. Without trust and nurse-client rapport, the client may not understand or agree to the plan regardless of ability.

Community resources are important but secondary. If the client rejects referrals due to mistrust or lack of engagement, resources alone do not ensure follow-through or safety.

Asking about the method is part of risk assessment but does not evaluate prevention learning or future strategy.

Asking about a phone number checks resource access, not the client’s internal coping ability or skill development.

This question focuses on past emotions, not on learned strategies. It may evoke guilt or discomfort rather than build future focus.

This describes unconditional positive regard, which emphasizes valuing the client without judgment, not the nurse’s authenticity.

This is empathy, focusing on understanding the client’s inner world and communicating that understanding with emotional sensitivity.

This reflects concreteness, which is the use of clear, specific language rather than vague or abstract terms, aiding comprehension but not reflecting genuineness.

Confrontation escalates hostility in intoxicated clients, whose cognitive and emotional processing is impaired. It increases defensiveness and the risk of violence.

Expressing disgust is judgmental and non-therapeutic. It undermines trust, provokes shame, and can intensify agitation or withdrawal.

A scolding or intimidating tone increases power struggles and can precipitate aggression or resistance, worsening the client’s behavioral instability.

Deflecting responsibility by stating only the psychiatrist can answer avoids addressing the client's concern and provides no therapeutic value.

This is false and violates patient autonomy. A voluntarily admitted client retains rights and does not require legal representation for discharge discussions unless involuntary commitment is initiated.

Making a prediction about a 1-week timeline is inaccurate and misleading. Discharge depends on clinical progress and safety evaluation, not fixed durations.

While some Vietnamese individuals may identify as atheist due to historical political influences, many still engage in ancestor worship, Buddhism, or syncretic practices. Assuming atheism ignores cultural and spiritual diversity.

There is no indication the client is struggling with language comprehension. His strong refusal suggests understanding of the suggestion rather than a communication barrier.

There is no evidence the client disrespects healthcare staff or Western medicine. His refusal is specifically related to a culturally charged suggestion, not general attitude.

There is no indication of a food allergy to rice or any other ingredient; the objection was directed at the presence of ham.

Vegetarianism would not explain refusal of the rice and vegetables, and the primary concern was likely the presence of pork, not meat in general.

The dietary laws of Islam (halal) also forbid pork, but the client is described as religious Jewish, not Muslim, making this rationale culturally inaccurate.